Technology of LNG & the World of Energy.pdf

Presentation about LNG technology in the word

1. Ch. 30 -1
LNG & the World of Energy
30.1. Classification of Liquefaction Processes
Chapter 30 –LNG Technology -Processes

2. Ch. 30 -2
LNG Plant Categories by Capacities
Plant Type Capacity (MMscfd/mtpd)
LNG fueling stations 0.5-10
Mini LNG 1 -5
LNG peakshaving; flare gas 5-20
Small-scale 1-10
Medium-scale 10-200
Small-scale baseload 50-250
Baseload plants 300-1,000
Tim CORNITIUS -SYNGAS Refiner

3. Ch. 30 -3
LNG Liquefier Components
 Cold Box
 Depending on process, one or more cold boxes containing brazed aluminum heat
exchangers, separator vessels, cryogenic piping, instrumentation, valves.
Propane pre-cooled system may also contain core-in-kettle heat exchangers
 MR Compressor
 Electric motor or gas turbine drive centrifugal compressor depending upon site-
specific requirements
 Refrigerant System Vessels
 Vessels required on compressor suction and discharge
 Aerial Inter-Coolers and Condenser
 Cryogenic Liquid Collection & Vaporizer System
 Heavies Removal Column
 Requirement determined by feed composition

4. Ch. 30 -4
Vendors/Liquefaction Processes
Large-scale units tend to use mixed-refrigerant loops (MRL)
while smaller units use turbo-expanders
Crossover point from turbo-expander to MRL is about 0.05
million mty
Baseload plants use plate-fin (PFHE) and coil-wound cryogenic
heat exchangers
Baseload Liquefaction Processes
 Air Products -Propane pre-cooled Mixed Refrigerant (PPMR)
 ConocoPhillips -Optimized Cascade LNG process
 Statoil/Linde –Mixed Fluid Cascade process
 Shell –DMR (Dual Mixed Refrigerant) process
 IFP/Axens -Liquefin
Smal/Mid Scale Liquefaction Processes
 Black & Veatch –PRICO SMR (Single Mixed Refrigerant)
 Linde LE -Advanced Single-flow
 Kryopak‟s EXP

5. Ch. 30 -5
Baseload Liquefaction Processes
 Air Products
 Propane pre-cooled MR (PPMR) uses nitrogen, methane, ethane, propane
 Gas feed initially cooled by propane chiller to -35°C
 Liquid/vapor streams chilled further before flashed across J-T valves to provide cooling
for final gas liquefaction
 Used in 82% of baseload plants and APCI also moving into small and medium -scale
plants
 ConocoPhillips
 Original optimized cascade LNG process uses propane/ethylene circuits, methane flash
circuit, brazed-aluminum heat exchangers and core-in-kettle exchangers
 Statoil/Linde
 LNG Technology Alliance‟s mixed-fluid cascade process uses three MR cycles to pre-
cool, liquefy, sub-cool purified gas.
 Linde makes proprietary spiral wound heat exchanger (SWHE)
 Shell
 Dual MR process has two separate MR cooling cycles using SWHEs and process
configuration similar to PPMR process
 Shell also has single MR process
 IFP/Axens
 Liquefin produces LNG at very high capacities and is two-MR process for new LNG
baseload projects of 6 MTPA train sizes

6. Ch. 30 -6
Small, Mid-Scale Liquefaction Processes
 Black & Veatch
 PRICO process uses single-MR loop/single refrigeration compression system:
nitrogen, methane, ethane, propane, iso-pentane.
 MR compressed/partially condensed prior to entering cold box w/PFHE cores.
 Used for peakshaving, vehicle fuel supply, gas distribution systems: 4 to
>180 MMscfd.
 BV has 16 operating plants: 4 to 360 MMscfd and nine projects under
development
 Linde LE
 Advanced single-flow for mid-scale 0.2-1.0-MTPA plants
 Liquefaction occurs in SWHE
 Basic single-flow for small <0.2 MTPA plants such as peakshaving or mini-
LNG
 Pre-cooling, liquefaction & sub-cooling occurs in 1 or 2 PFHE(s)
 Kryopak’s EXP
 Single-cycle turbo-expander refrigeration uses inlet process gas as refrigerant
 No mixed refrigerant (MR) required
 PCMR -pre-cooled MR: nitrogen, methane, ethane, butanes w/ conventional
refrigeration circuit for pre-cooling. SCMR -single-cycle MR: nitrogen,
methane, ethane, butanes and pentane

7. Ch. 30 -7
Small, Mid-Scale Liquefaction Processes
 Chart Energy & Chemicals
 Provides process design thru engineering, construction, startup to meet
small-plant requirements.
 Designed cold boxes for Phillips Cascade Process and provides aluminum
plate and core-in-kettle heat exchangers.
 Mustang Engineering
 LNG Smart requires no refrigerant production
 Eliminates MRs. Uses inlet gas as sole refrigerant medium. Gas enters
multistage process via compression, turbo-expansion.
 Hamworthy
 Offers small-scale plant using closed nitrogen expansion loop providing
required cold duty to liquefy gas
 Mini-LNG plant uses pipeline or landfill gas
 ABB-Lummus
 Ammonia based absorption-refrigeration

8. Ch. 30 -8
LNG Plant Economics
 Large-scale plant costs doubling/tripling w/strong LNG demand. Base
product costs up 20 to 30% last two years. Small-scale costs risen
50%. Manufacturing efficiencies reducing plant costs while joint-
venture partnerships lowering component costs
 Until 2003, medium-scale liquefiers (0.1-1.0 million mty) built for
$300-$400 per metric ton per year (mt/y) of capacity -a premium
price/unit of production between 3.0-8.0 million mty. Large-scale
plants produced sufficient volumes to cover substantial costs of marine
facilities such as long jetties, breakwaters and channel dredging
 Beginning w/economic rebound of 2002 recession, large-scale plant
costs increased to near $500/ mt/y of capacity. Medium and small-
scale plants have increased just 50%. Producing around six plants per
year could significantly reduce costs

9. Ch. 30 -9
LNG & the World of Energy
30.2. Liquefaction Processes Fundamentals
Chapter 30 –LNG Technology -Processes

10. Ch. 30 -10
LNG Technology Trend

11. Ch. 30 -11
Natural Gas
Acid Gas
Removal
Dehydration
Mercury
Removal
Gas
Wells
Reception Liquefaction
Condensate
Stabilisation
Fractionation
Utilities
Storage
and
Loading
Condensate
LNG
LPG
Acid Gas
Treatment
LNG Block Flow Diagram

12. Ch. 30 -12
Mixed
Refrigerant
Mixed
Refrigerant
Pure
Refrigerant
Temperature
Heat
Natural gas Cooling
Curve
Refrigerant
Cooling Curve
Typical Natural Gas /
Refrigerant Cooling Curves

13. Ch. 30 -13
LNG Liquefaction in a Nutshell

14. Ch. 30 -14
Air Cooled
Avoid sea water cooling and
therefore more environmentally
friendly
Gas Turbine Driver
Increasing Gas Turbines
efficiency, plus waste heat
utilization
Eliminate Steam Generation
Design Trend of
LNG Liquefaction Technology

15. Ch. 30 -15
Technolgy overview –Baseload plants
Three main processes:
Cascade cycle:
Separate refrigerant cycles with propane,
ethylene and methane (Phillips, Atlantic
LNG, Trinidad)
Mixed refrigerant cycle:
Single mixed refrigerant (SMR) (PRICO)
Propane pre-cooled mixed refrigerant (C3/MR)
(APCI)
Dual mixed process (DMR) (Shell, Sakhalin),
(Liquefin)
Mixed Fluid Cascade Process (MFCP)
(Statoil/Linde)
Expander cycle

16. Ch. 30 -16
LNG Process Systems
Common LNG Process Systems
Phillips Cascade Process
Three Pure Components
Propane
Ethylene
Methane
APCI (Air Products)
Two Components
Propane
Mixed Component Refrigerant
New Emerging LNG Process Systems
Linde Process
Three Mixed Refrigerants
Axens Liquefin Process
Dual Mixed Refrigerant
Shell Process
Dual Mixed Refrigerant
Dr Sib Akhtar -MSE (Consultants) Ltd, 2004

17. Ch. 30 -17
LNG liquefaction technologies in commercial use:
Air Products & Chemicals Propane Pre-Cooled Mixed
Refrigerant. (APCI), Dual Cycle Refrigeration
Phillips Optimized Cascade (POC), Triple Cycle
Refrigeration
Shell DMR, Similar to APCI, Dual Cycle, both MR
Linde MFCP (Multi Fluid Cycle Process)
Black & Veatch Pritchard, Poly Refrigerant Integral Cycle
Operation II (PRICO II), Single Cycle Refrigeration
Other LNG Liquefaction Processes
BHP/Linde (Nitrogen, Single Cycle Refrigeration)
TEALARC, Similar to PRICO, Single Cycle MR
TEALARC Conventional Cascade
IFP/CII-1 SMR, Similar to PRICO, Single Cycle MR
IFP/CII-2 DMR, Similar to Shell DMR, Dual Cycles MR
IFP/CII is now Axen Liquefin
LNG Liquefaction Technology

18. Ch. 30 -18
Classification of LNG Liquefaction Technology
Single Cycle Refrigeration
(SCR)
SCR Pure Component
BHP/Linde (Nitrogen
Cycle)
SCR Mixed Components
TEAL (Skikda Unit 10,
20, 30, Algeria)
PRICO (Skikda Unit 40,
50, 60, Algeria)
APCI (Marsa El-Brega,
Lybia)
CII/BP (proposed
concept)
Dual Cycle Refrigeration
(DCR)
Propane/MR Cycles
(APCI)
Brunei, Algeria Arzew,
Das-Island, Badak,
Arun, Malaysia-1/2/3,
Australia NWS 1/2/3,
QatarGas, RasGas,
Oman
Dual MR
Australia NWS-4,
Russia Sakhalin (being
built or designed)
Triple Cycle Refrigeration
Propylene/Ethylene/Meth
ane
Algeria –CAMEL, Kenai
(Alaska), Trinidad

19. Ch. 30 -19
LNG Liquefaction Technology

20. Ch. 30 -20
LNG Liquefaction Technologies

21. Ch. 30 -21
LNG Liquefaction Processes
Michael Barclay and Noel Denton, Foster Wheeler Energy Limited, UK

22. Ch. 30 -22
FEED GAS LNG
COLD BOXES
COMPRESSOR
CONDENSER
JT VALVE
REFRIGERANT:
C1, C2, C3, C4
Applied by APCI (Marsa El Brega –Libya), TEALARC (Skikda 1,2,3 –Algeria)
& PRICO (Skikda 4,5,6 –Algeria), but no longer commercially offered
Conventional Single Refrigeration Cycles

23. Ch. 30 -23
FEED GAS LNG
COLD BOXES
JT VALVE
REFRIGERANT:
C1, C2, C5
Offered by PRICO for the design of Mobil Floating LNG, Tangguh
LNG & Venezuela Enron LNG.
(Optimized SMR, PRICO II)
Optimized Single Refrigeration Cycle

24. Ch. 30 -24
FEED
GAS LNG
COLD BOXES
JT
VALVE
(Optimized SMR, IFP/CII-1)
Optimized Single Refrigeration Cycle

25. Ch. 30 -25
LNG
DRY
SWEET
GAS
REFRIGERANT
: PROPANE
REFRIGERANT
: N2, C1,C2,
C3, C4
Applied by APCI in most APCI‟s Propane/Mixed Refrigerant LNG Plant
(Brunei, Das Island, Badak, Arun, Arzew, MLNG 1/2, Australia NWS 1/2/3,
Nigeria, QatarGas, RasGas, Oman)
(C3/MR Cycles)
Conventional Two Refrigeration Cycles
Propane Cycle
MR Cycle

26. Ch. 30 -26
Generic C3/MR LNG Process

27. Ch. 30 -27
LNG Plant –Overall Schematic

28. Ch. 30 -28
LNG
LP MIXED
REFRIGERANT
HP MIXED
REFRIGERANT
GE F-7
GE F-7
Applied by Shell for Australia NWS 4/5 and Russia‟s Sakhalin LNG
Shell DMR –Dual MR Cycles
Optimized Two Refrigeration Cycles

29. Ch. 30 -29
LNG
PROPANE & HP
MIXED
REFRIGERANT
LP/MP MIXED
REFRIGERANT
Applied by APCI for the design of Yemen and Tangguh LNG
Optimized Two Refrigeration Cycles (APCI)
Split MR

30. Ch. 30 -30
DRY
SWEE
T GAS
LNG
REFRIGERANT:
PROPYLENE
REFRIGERANT:
METHANE
REFRIGERANT:
ETHYLENE
Applied by TEAL (Camel LNG –Algeria) & Phillips (Kenai LNG –
Alaska), but no longer commercially offered
(Conventional Cascade)
Conventional Three Refrigeration Cycles

31. Ch. 30 -31
DRY
SWEET
GAS
REFRIGERANT:
PROPYLENE
REFRIGERANT:
METHANE/LNG
REFRIGERANT:
ETHYLENE
LNG
Applied by Phillips for Atlantic LNG (Trinidad) and the design of
RasGas Expansion, Darwin LNG, Angola LNG and Tangguh LNG
(Phillips Optimized Cascade)
Optimized Three Refrigeration Cycles

32. Ch. 30 -32
C3/MR Process Simplified Scheme

33. Ch. 30 -33
Cascade Process

34. Ch. 30 -34
APX Process Simplified Scheme

35. Ch. 30 -35
Shell DMR Process Simplified Scheme

36. Ch. 30 -36
LINDE Process Simplified Scheme

37. Ch. 30 -37
Liquefin Process Simplified Scheme

38. Ch. 30 -38
Mach number vs flow coefficient for the
first stage compressor (propane or MR)

39. Ch. 30 -39
Effect on LNG production
on end flash quantity

40. Ch. 30 -40
LNG & the World of Energy
30.3. Thermodynamics of LNG Liquefaction
Processes
Chapter 30 –LNG Technology -Processes

41. Ch. 30 -41
-170
150
Entropy
Temp., deg.C
Feed Gas In
LNG Out
Carnot Cycle Ideal Work
For LNG Liquefaction
Evaporation
Carnot Cycle for Pure Component Refrigeration

42. Ch. 30 -42
-170
150
Entropy
Temp., deg.C
Feed Gas In
LNG Out
Carnot Cycle Ideal Work
For LNG Liquefaction
Carnot Cycle for SMR Process

43. Ch. 30 -43
-170
150
Entropy
Temp., deg.C
Feed Gas In
Carnot Cycle
Ideal Work
For LNG
Liquefaction 3 Stages Propane
Mixed
Refrigerant
LNG Out
Carnot Cycle for C3/MR Process

44. Ch. 30 -44
-170
150
Entropy
Temp., deg.C
METHANE
REFRIGERATION
ETHYLENE
REFRIGERATION
PROPANE
REFRIGERATION
Area of Process nefficiency
Carnot Cycle
Ideal Work
For LNG
Liquefaction
Feed Gas In
LNG Out
Carnot Cycle for Cascade Process

45. Ch. 30 -45
-170
150
Entropy
Temp., deg.C
Feed Gas In
Thermodynamic Efficiency of
SMR (Red Line Area) vs
C3/MR (Green Line Area)
3 Stages
Propane
LNG Out
JT Valve Outlet
1st MCR Compr.
suction
1st MCR Compr. discharge
2nd MCRCompr. discharge
Chillers Inlet
JT Valve Inlet
Area of Process Inefficiency
Mixed
Refrigerant
3rd. C3 Compr.
discharge
2nd. C3 Compr.
discharge
1st. C3 Compr.
discharge
Carnot Cycle Ideal Work For LNG Liquefaction
Superimposed Carnot Cycle
for LNG Processes

46. Ch. 30 -46
LNG & the World of Energy
30.4. In Search of the Best LNG Liquefaction
Processes
Chapter 30 –LNG Technology -Processes

47. Ch. 30 -47
SMR (Single Mixed Refrigerant)
Single cycle, less equipment per module
Single cycle requires high volume of circulated
refrigerant, need large axial compressors
Proven axial compressor size currently limit module
capacity to 1.3 mmTpa/module
Larger capacity require multiple parallel modules, end
up with more equipments than other technology with
diminishing impact on economic of scale
Splitted heavy MR fraction (PRICO II) improve
efficiency but cold boxes inlet header re-mixing
mechanism is not proven for large scale
SMR features is favourable for smaller scale LNG Plant
up to 1,3 mmTpa, or large scale LNG train consist of
several smaller modules
Which LNG Technology is Better, SMR?

48. Ch. 30 -48
C3/MR (Propane Pre-cooled/Mixed Refrigerant)
Dual cycles, more equipments than SMR technology but less
equipment than Triple Cycles technology (Cascade)
The most popular LNG technology with 95% market share (train
basis)
Higher thermodynamic efficiency than other LNG technology
(except DMR), less power consumption for the same LNG
production
Sole source of the Main Cryogenic Heat Exchanger (only
available from APCI), but recently being challenged by
Shell/Linde Main Cryogenic Heat Exchanger (to be used for
Australia NWS-4 and Sakhalin Project)
De facto „monopoly‟ has been critized of causing high project
cost on previous LNG projects.
Largest capacity in operation is 3.5 mmTpa and a plant with 4.8
mmTpa is being built (MLNG-3)
Cost reduction initiatives is a must otherwise it will losing
market share
Which LNG Technology is Better, C3/MR?

49. Ch. 30 -49
Shell DMR (Dual Mixed Refrigerant)
Dual Cycles, characteristic is very similar to APCI
C3/MR technology
Dual MR, theoretically will have highest
thermodynamic efficiency, better than APCI C3/MR
Dual MR will effectively used all available power of
the drivers and efficiently macth the cooling curve of
the gas
Shell use newly designed Linde Spiral Wound Main
Heat Exchanger, performance, efficiency and
reliability is yet to be seen (Australia NWS-4, Russia
Sakhalin)
If the Linde Main Cryogenic Exchanger is as good as
APCI Main Cryogenic Exchanger, this technology is a
serious contender for the APCI C3/MR
Shell patented this DMR technology, APCI technically
can also offer the same technology but may raise
legal dispute with Shell
Which LNG Technology is Better, DMR?

50. Ch. 30 -50
Split MR (Optimized C3/MR Refrigeration)
Dual Cycles, characteristic is very similar to APCI C3/MR
technology
The concept is to maximize utilitization of the excess power
in the propane circuit by attaching the HP MR Refrigeration
compressor to the propane gas turbine driver.
This concept mitigate the risk of legal dispute with Shell
DMR technology, while thermodynamic efficiency is only
slightly less than the DMR technology.
The use of single large APCI Main Cryogenic Heat
Exchanger may close the gap in efficiency compare to the
Shell DMR technology which uses two smaller Linde Main
Cryogenic Heat Exchanger
The splitting of MR refrigeration circuit into two different
driver pose a more complicated operation and control
system, must be designed carefully. A dynamic process
simulation is a must.
Which LNG Technology is Better, Split MR?

51. Ch. 30 -51
Phillips Optimized Cascade (Triple Cycle Refrigeration)
Triple Cycle, use more equipment than other technology
Use pure component refrigerant (propylene, ethylene and
methane), thermodynamically less efficient than MR cycle
Pure component refrigeration circuit makes this technology
easiest to operate.
Propylene and ethylene is not readily available in the feed gas,
may pose some logistic problem for a remote LNG Plant.
The new Optimized Cascade apply and open cycle for the
methane refrigeration, where part of the methane refrigerant
is re-mix with the gas being liquefied and function as a
quenching fluid.
Open cycle and quenching scheme improve process efficiency,
reduce the requirement of heat exchanger area. Quenching is
heat exchange without heat exchanger.
Currently being design using three GE Frame-5 gas turbines,
limit the capacity to 1.8 mmTpa per module
If three GE Frame-7 is used, module capacity will be close to
4.5 mTpa (Trinidad Train-4 is 5.2 mmTpa. Largest LNG train
capacity in operation)
Which LNG Technology is Better, Cascade?

52. Ch. 30 -52
The most efficient technology is the one that can effectively match
the cooling curve of the liquefied gas
Thermodynamically speaking, Mixed Refrigeration is better efficiency
than Pure Component Refrigeration. And, multiple cycle refrigeration
is better efficiency than single cycle (for the same refrigerant type)
So, the „ideal LNG technology‟ is the one that:
 Use infinite number of refrigeration cycles, and
 Use mixed refrigeration in each cycles
But wait . . . , those minute refrigeration equipments do not exist in
the real world. In fact, it is a complete opposite of „economic of scale
rule‟.
Equipment design calls for a larger and less equipment to improve
cost and economics
The „Best LNG Technology‟ should be an appropriate balance of
thermodynamic efficiency and the use of the largest (and proven)
equipments
There is no such ‘Best LNG Technology’, select your best LNG
technology that match your specified capacity, gas composition and
commercially available process drivers, refrigeration compressors and
main heat exchanger technology
In Search of LNG Technology Excellence

53. Ch. 30 -53
Capacity Rule of Thumb
 For smaller capacity, up to 1 mmTpa such as in peak shaving LNG Plant, motor
driven SMR would be the „ideal technology‟
 For a larger capacity LNG design, the evaluation is more complex. The „ideal
technology‟ would be the one that can match the power of commercially
available gas turbine driver.
Current LNG industry is dominated by GE Frame-5D (33 MW) and GE
Frame-7EA (84 MW). Approximate power to capacity match, not included
helper power
One GE F-5D (33 MW) : 0.6 mmTpa
Two GE F-5D (66 MW) : 1.2 mmTpa
One GE F-7EA (84 MW) : 1.5 mmTpa
Three GE F-5D (99 MW) : 1.8 mmTpa
One GE F-9EC (127 MW) : 2.3 mmTpa
Two GE F-7EA (168 MW) : 3.0 mmTpa
Three GE F-7EA (252 MW) : 4.4 mmTpa
Two GE F-9EC (254 MW) : 4.5 mmTpa
Best Fit Rule of Thumb : pick your desired LNG capacity, find the closest
macth of driver configuration (rounded up), find the technology that using
the same number of cycles as the driver configuration.
Again, this is a rule of thumb. Don‟t try your luck with your US$ 2 Billion
investment with this methodology. Set a competitive technology bid, and
do a thorough technical and economical evaluation.
In Search of LNG Technology Excellence

54. Ch. 30 -54
Sharpen your pencil : many ways to improve LNG design efficiency and
economics.
Gas Turbine Waste Heat Utilization (Co-generation System)
 Improve gas turbine system efficiency by 15%, equivalent to production
efficiency of 5%
LNG Expander
 Improve production efficiency by 2%
Starter/Helper Dual Function
 Applicable for large gas turbine which requires large starter (such as Frame-7
and Frame-9), use the starter power as continous helper power
All Motor Driven Refrigeration
 Centralized very large and efficient electrical power co-generation (Frame-9)
 Reduced overall CO2 emission, more environmentally friendly option
 High efficiency motor driver, but requires complex starting system (torque
converter)
Use of Largest Gas Turbine (GE Frame-9)
 Not a proven application. Require Frame-5 as starting device.
 Tandem refrigeration compressors add to operation complexity and probably
reliability
Use Very Large, Single Brazed Aluminum Exchanger (Goodbye APCI . . .)
 Unfortunately not commercially available, current largest BAE is only 1/10 of
one APCI Spiral Wound Heat Exchanger
In Search of LNG Technology Excellence

55. Ch. 30 -550.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Power (MW)
Capacity (MMTPA)
2 F-7EA
6 F-5D
2 F-7EA + 40 MW
8 F-5D
3 F-7EA
Cascade
C3/MR
Dual MR
2 F-7EA + 70 MW
1 F-9
Single MR
1 F-7EA
3 F-5D
LNG Capacity, Power & Technology Matching

56. Ch. 30 -56
LNG & the World of Energy
30.5. Drivers & Compressor Configuration
Analysis
Chapter 30 –LNG Technology -Processes

57. Ch. 30 -57
Factors Influencing
Compressor Driver Selection
Plant Capacity
Process Used –Choice and Number of
Refrigerant Streams
Compressor Configuration
Plant Location; Ambient Conditions
Plant Availability
Operational Flexibility
Economic Factors -CAPEX & OPEX

58. Ch. 30 -58
Phillips Cascade Process
Many plant still being designed and built using the
cascade process –simple and reliable
Three pure components used for refrigeration:
Propane pre-cooling
Ethylene
Methane
Propane pre-cooling
Centrifugal compressors
Typically 2 x ~30 MW Gas Turbines (e.g. Frame 5)
Ethylene and Methane cycles
Centrifugal compressors
Typically 2 x ~30 MW Gas Turbines (e.g. Frame 5)
for each cycle

59. Ch. 30 -59
APCI Process
Most of existing plant are using the
APCI process with 3 –3.3 MTPA Fr 6 /
Fr 7 combination
Train capacities up to 4.7 MTPA built
or under construction using Fr 7 / Fr 7
combination
Higher Capacities to 7.9 MTPA being
announced with Frame 9 GT
Two main refrigeration cycles:
Propane pre-cooling
Mixed refrigerant liquefaction and sub-
cooling

60. Ch. 30 -60
APCI Process
Propane pre-cooling
Centrifugal compressor (to 15 –25 bar)
Side-streams at 3 pressure levels
Typically requires a ~40 MW Gas Turbine (e.g.
Frame 6) plus Helper Motor or Steam Turbine
Compressor sizes reaching maximum capacity
limits
Added aerodynamic constraint; high blade Mach
numbers due to high mole weight of propane (44)
Prevents utilisation of full power from larger gas
turbines (Frame 7)
Mixed refrigerant liquefaction and sub-cooling
Axial LP for Shell Advised Plant
Centrifugal HP compressor (45 –48 bar)
Typically requires ~70 MW Gas Turbine (e.g.
Frame 7) plus Helper Motor or Steam Turbine

61. Ch. 30 -61
APCI Process
Mixed refrigerant liquefaction and sub-cooling
Large volumetric flows
Two casing arrangements (LP and an HP)
Axial LP / centrifugal HP compressor (45 –48
bar)
Typically requires ~70 MW Gas Turbine (e.g.
Frame 7) plus Helper Motor or Steam Turbine
LP and HP compressor speeds compromised
LP axial compressor (higher efficiency)
HP centrifugal compressor

62. Ch. 30 -62
Elliott Compressors in LNG
World‟s first large-scale liquefaction plant (CAMEL –
Arzew, Algeria)
World‟s first baseload refrigeration plant (Phillips -Kenai,
Alaska)
World‟s first gas turbine driven LNG compressors (Phillips,
Alaska)
World‟s first single-mixed refrigerant (APCI) process
compression (Esso (Exxon) –Marsa el-Brega, Libya)
World‟s first dual-shaft (GE Frame 5) gas turbine driven
compressor strings (P.T. Arun (Mobil) –Indonesia)
World‟s first C3-MR (APCI) process compression (P.T.Arun
–Indonesia)
World‟s first GE Frame 7 driven Propane MR compressor
(Ras Gas 1&2 –Ras Laffan, Qatar)
World‟s largest four-section Propane MR compressor (Ras
Gas 3 –Ras Laffan, Qatar -UNDER CONSTRUCTION)

63. Ch. 30 -63
APCI Process Evolution
Petronas MLNG, located in Bintulu, Sarawak
First trains designed in the ‟70s:
3 x Centrifugal compressors
3 x Steam Turbine drivers ~ 37 MW each

64. Ch. 30 -64
APCI Process Evolution
Extension trains designed in the ‟90s:
Propane pre-cooling:
Centrifugal compressor
30 MW Gas Turbine & 7 MW Steam Turbine
Mixed component refrigeration (MCR):
LP axial compressor & HP centrifugal compressor
64 MW Gas Turbine & 7 MW Steam Turbine

65. Ch. 30 -65
APCI –RasGas I & II, Qatar

66. Ch. 30 -66
RAS GAS III (&IV), RAS LAFFAN, QATAR
UNDER CONSTRUCTION

67. Ch. 30 -67
Axens Liquefin Process
Mixed refrigerants for pre-cooling, liquefaction
and sub-cooling duties
Liquefin development studies presently
oriented towards increasing capacity to 6
MTPA with:
2 x Frame 7 Gas Turbines for main compression
2 x Frame 5 Gas Turbines for power generation
Higher capacities possible using:
Frame 9 GTs
Electric motors
Steam turbines etc

68. Ch. 30 -68
Axens Liquefin Process
Similar to APCI with Propane compressor
replaced with Mixed Refrigerant for pre-
cooling
Allows more balanced flows, refrigeration
loads and power between the two
compressors
Avoids the process design limits associated
with Propane compressors

69. Ch. 30 -69
Shell DMR Process
Similar to Axens but with twin parallel
compressor trains for each process
stream
Use of aero-derivative or VSD motors
Shell claim 4.5 -5.5 MTPA and lower
cost

70. Ch. 30 -70
Linde Process
Mixed refrigerants for pre-cooling, liquefaction
and sub-cooling duties
Minimum of Three Gas Turbine or electric
motors needed for compressor driver
4.3 MTPA plant under construction with VSD
motor drivers and onsite power generation
with aero-derivative gas turbines

71. Ch. 30 -71
Process Design, Driver Ratings
& Compressor Configuration
APCI process uses larger and larger gas turbines
to reduce CAPEX in a single train configuration;
bigger gas turbine have lower $/kW
Frame 7EA used for Mixed Refrigerant
Frame 6 being replaced by Frame 7 for Propane
for larger plants
The plants are “single train” i.e. each machine is
designed for 100% capacity and arranged in
series
Phillips Optimised Cascade process have used
2x50% compressor configuration and achieved
cost savings and high availability
Shell DMR process appears to favour twin train
configuration and achieves 4.5 -5.5 MTPA with
larger aero-derivative

72. Ch. 30 -72
Gas Turbines Used in LNG Plant
Heavy Duty Gas Turbines:
Mechanical drive shown in blue
Power generation shown in yellow
Aero-derivative Gas Turbines

73. Ch. 30 -73
Combined Cycles and LNG Plant –Potential

74. Ch. 30 -74
Partial List -ELLIOTT LNG Plants

75. Ch. 30 -75
Steam Turbines -Pros
Several established Vendors
Size; may be built to exact process specification
Mechanical drive up to 130 MW not a problem
Constant speed power generation 600–1100 MW
High reliability; 30 years life is achievable
High availability; compressors & steam turbines may
both achieve 3 years non-stop operation, no need for
inspection
Steam is often required elsewhere in process
Mixed fuel; boilers can utilise varying fuel mix whereas
gas turbines require fuel specification to be maintained
Higher thermodynamic efficiency than simple cycle GT
(but lower efficiency than GT-steam combined cycle)
Power output relatively unaffected by ambient
conditions

76. Ch. 30 -76
Steam Turbines -Cons
Perceived as old “Victorian” technology
Physically very large; boilers, condensers,
desalination plant (for make-up water), water
polishing plant etc.
CAPEX of steam turbine plant is higher than
simple cycle GT (but similar cost to combined
cycle)
Overhaul of steam turbine similar to large
frame GT (but interval between overhauls is
twice as long!)
Added complexity in steam auxiliaries,
including feed heating, boiler feed pumps etc.

77. Ch. 30 -77
Industrial Gas Turbines -Pros
Simple cycle GT is uncomplicated in its design
Low CAPEX
Economies of scale when using large frame GTs
Extensive operational experience with mechanical
drive applications
Large population; perceived as low risk technology
Skid mounted; easier to install than a steam
system
Smaller plant footprint; less extensive civil works
Lower NOX than Aero-derivative GT
Range of sizes available:
Frame 5 ~ 30 MW
Frame 6 ~ 40 MW
Frame 7 ~ 75 MW
Frame 9 ~ 110 MW

78. Ch. 30 -78
Industrial Gas Turbines -Cons
Paucity of Vendors!
Low thermal efficiency, high CO2 emissions
Maintenance is intensive, involving prolonged on-
site work which reduces plant availability
Fixed sizes and fixed optimal speeds
Process and compressors must be designed around
the GT (unlike steam turbines)
Process may not make full use of the GT power
Power output highly sensitive to ambient conditions
e.g. typical large GT:
100% power At 15 °C
~95% power At 20 °C
~88% power At 30 °C
~82% power At 40 °C

79. Ch. 30 -79
Aero-Derivative Gas Turbines -Pros
Higher thermal efficiency than Industrial GT; 38-42%
compared to 28-32% for similar size Industrial GTs in
simple cycle
Smaller footprint area than Industrial GT because of
aero design
Shorter maintenance period; modular design allows gas
engine and power turbine sections to be swapped out
Off-site maintenance (in factory). Thus, higher plant
availability
Most engines have free power turbines for variable
speed operation (within a range)
Large helper motors or steam turbines may not be
needed for start-up
Range of sizes available:
RB211 ~ 30 MW
LM6000 ~ 40 MW
Trent ~ 55 MW

80. Ch. 30 -80
Aero-Derivative Gas Turbines -Cons
Paucity of Vendors (essentially only 2)!
Higher NOX than Industrial GTs Engines need more care
and maintenance due to higher operating pressures and
temperatures and design complexity
Fixed sizes and fixed optimal speeds
Process and compressors must be designed around the GT
(unlike steam turbines)
Process may not make full use of the GT power
Power output highly sensitive to ambient conditions
Fuel quality is critical –even more than in Industrials!
Limited operating experience for LNG, although extensive
for offshore mechanical drive and power generation
Powers greater than 60 MW not available in simple cycle
Dry Low Emissions (NOX) technology adds complexity
Higher risk technology than Industrial GTs

81. Ch. 30 -81
Combined Cycles
Pros
Mitigates some of the cons of Industrial GTs
Adds some of the pros of Steam Turbines
Essentially, 50% extra power / 50% extra thermal
efficiency / 50% lower CO2 emissions
Allows optimisation of process and compressors
Steam turbine can be used for start-up and
additional power
Steam may be required elsewhere in the process
Cons
High CAPEX, increased complexity, more extensive
civil works… same as for Steam Turbine
Combined cycles are not presently favoured by
LNG plant designers, but may be considered when
CO2 is taxed!

82. Ch. 30 -82
Variable Speed Electric Motors -Pros
Can be made to suit, allowing optimisation of
process and compressors
Higher availability of LNG plant than if using GTs
or Steam Turbines
Reduced manning levels
May avoid gearboxes for 3000-3600 rpm
compressor speeds (large flow capacity
compressors)
Power generation may be off-site
Lower CAPEX if power is bought from the grid
Simple layout, reduced civil works

83. Ch. 30 -83
Variable Speed Electric Motors -Cons
Most LNG plant are in remote locations; off-site
power generation of 400-500 MW not available!
Very high CAPEX if power generation is built
alongside LNG
High OPEX (although savings may be possible)
Limited experience with high power VSDs; 45-55
MW is achievable, 65 MW is the maximum
Electrical issues at compressor start-up; grid peak
current and fault levels
Power generation using GTs must happen
somewhere; CO2,
NOX and sensitivity to ambient conditions is
similar to a GT (unless power generation is using
a combined cycle)

84. Ch. 30 -84
Driver Selection for LNG -Summary
LNG drivers are predominately Industrial Heavy Duty Gas Turbines
e.g. GE Frames 5, 6, 7 … even 9!
Frame 5s generally used on older LNG plant, although ALNG in
Trinidad was recently fitted with Frame 5Ds; these are
demonstrating high overall availability at low CAPEX… 3.3 MTPA with
6 x Fr 5
Fr 6 / Fr 7 combinations replaced Steam Turbines at MLNG
Now Fr 6 / Fr 7 commonly used at NLNG, Oman LNG, Qatar LNG…
3.3 –3.5 MTPA
Fr 7 / Fr 7 combinations used at Qatar LNG, but with poor use of GT
power because of non-optimal process, process had to be
redesigned… ~4 MTPA
Larger and larger trains are pushing the limits of compressor
technology i.e. Axials for Mixed Refrigerant and largest centrifugals
for Propane
When parallel trains are used (instead of series) e.g. ALNG:
 Smaller driver sizes can be used e.g. Frame 5s
 Compressor capacities are halved, so centrifugals may be used instead of
axials
 Plant availability is enhanced
 Improved operability, re-starting after a train failure is simpler and
quicker
 Plant costs are surprisingly lower

85. Ch. 30 -85
F-7?F-7
F-7
MRC3
Single MR
47.4 MW/mmTpa,
1.8 mmTpa
C3/MR
40.5 MW/mmTpa,
2.1 mmTpa
F-5
C3= F-5
C2= F-5
C1
Cascade
45.3 MW/mmTpa, 1.8
mmTpa
1 F-7EA = 79 MW + 6 MW Helper/Starter, 1 F-5D = 26.5 MW Site Rating
LNG Train Capacity of 1 F-7 or 3 F-5

86. Ch. 30 -86
F-7
F-7?F-7
?F-7
F-7
MRMRF-7
MRC3
Single MR
47.4 MW/mmTpa,
3.6 mmTpa
C3/MR
40.5 MW/mmTpa,
4.2 mmTpa
Cascade
45.3 MW/mmTpa, 3.8
mmTpa
1 F-7EA = 79 MW Site Rating, + 6 MW Starter/Helper ST
F-7
C1C3= C1GB
F-7
C1C2= C1GB
LNG Train Capacity of 2 F-7EA

87. Ch. 30 -87
Single MR
47.4 MW/mmTpa,
5.4 mmTpa
C3/MR
40.5 MW/mmTpa,
6.3 mmTpa
Cascade
45.3 MW/mmTpa, 5.6
mmTpa
1 F-7EA = 79 MW Site Rating, + 6 MW Starter/Helper ST
F-7
MR MR
F-7
MR MR
F-7
MR MR
F-7
MRMRF-7
C3C3
F-7
MRMR
F-7
C2=C2=F-7
C3=C3=
F-7
C1C1 C1 C1
LNG Train Capacity of 3 F-7EA

88. Ch. 30 -880.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
Capacity (MMTPA)
C3/MR
1 x F-7
2 K
Casc.
3 x F-5
5 K
Casc.
6 x F-5
10 K
Casc.
2 x F-7
6 K
C3/MR
2 x F-7
4 K
Casc.
8 x F-5
12 K
Casc.
9 x F-5
15 K
SMR
1 x F-
7
2 K
SMR
2 x F-
7
4 K
SMR
3 x F-7
6 K
C3/MR
3 x F-7
6 K
Casc.
3 x F-7
9 K
LNG Capacity, Power & Technology Matching

89. Ch. 30 -89
F-7?F-7
F-7
MRC3
Single MR
47.4 MW/mmTpa,
83 MW
C3/MR
40.5 MW/mmTpa,
71 MW
F-5
C3= F-5
C2= F-5
C1
Cascade
45.3 MW/mmTpa,
80 MW
1 F-7EA = 79 MW, 1 F-5D = 26.5 MW Site Rating
LNG Train Configuration @ 1.75 mmTpa

90. Ch. 30 -90
F-7
F-7?F-7
?F-7
F-7
MRMRF-7
MRC3
Single MR
47.4 MW/mmTpa,
165 MW
C3/MR
40.5 MW/mmTpa,
142 MW
F-5
C3= F-5
C2= F-5
C1
F-5
C3= F-5
C2= F-5
C1
Cascade
45.3 MW/mmTpa,
159 MW
1 F-7EA = 79 MW, 1 F-5D = 26.5 MW Site Rating
+ 15
MW
S/T
LNG Train Configuration @ 3.5 mmTpa

91. Ch. 30 -91
Single MR -47.4 MW/mmTpa, 213 MW
F-7
MRMR MR ST
F-7
MRMR MR ST
ST
MRMR
F-7
MRMR
F-7
MRMR
F-7
MRMR
F-7
MRMR
F-7
MRMR
+ 55 MW S/T
+ 55 MW S/T
SMR Possible Configuration @ 4.5 mmTpa

92. Ch. 30 -92
C3/MR -40.5 MW/mmTpa, 183 MW
ST
C3C3 F-7
MRMR F-7
MRMR
+ 40
MW
S/T
F-7 MR
C3,?
ST F-7 MR
MR,?
ST
+ 40
MW
S/T
F-7 MRC3 C3 ST F-7 MRMR MR ST
+ 40
MW
S/T
C3/MR Possible Config. @ 4.5 mmTpa

93. Ch. 30 -93
Cascade -45.3 MW/mmTpa, 204 MW
F-5
C3= F-5
C2=
F-5
C3= F-5
C2=
F-5
C3= F-5
C2=
F-5
C1 C1 C1
F-5
C1 C1 C1
+ 70
MW
S/T
F-7
C1C3= C1 ST
GB
F-7
C1C3= C1 ST
GB
Cascade Configuration @ 4.5 mmTpa

94. Ch. 30 -94
2 Frame 9 Nominal 7.5 mta
SplitMR™ Machinery ConfigurationFRAME 9E PROPANE
LP
MR
STARTER-
HELPER HP
MR
MP
MR
FRAME 9E N2
STARTER-
HELPER 20 MW
20 MW

95. Ch. 30 -95
3 Frame 9 Nominal 9 mta FRAME 9E PROPANE
STARTER-
GENERATOR LP
MR
FRAME 9E
MP
MR
HP
MR
STARTER-
HELPER FRAME 9E
HP
N2
LP
N2
STARTER-
GENERATOR 20 MW
20 MW
20 MW

96. Ch. 30 -96
3 Frame 9 Nominal 10 mta
SplitMR™ Machinery ConfigurationFRAME 9E PROPANE
HP
MR
STARTER-
HELPER FRAME 9E
LP
MR
STARTER-
HELPER
MP
MR FRAME 9E
LP
N2
HP
N2
STARTER-
GENERATOR 20 MW
15 MW
15 MW

97. Ch. 30 -97
Electric Motor Drive 7 –10 mta
Arrangement depends
on maximum motor
size and desired train
capacity
Example:
55 MW maximum
motor size
Nominal 8 mmTpaHP
MR
MP
MR
LP
MR
LP
N2
HP
N2
PROPANE
STAGE 1-3
C3
STAGE 4 55
MW
55
MW
40
MW
40
MW
40
MW
40
MW

98. 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1980 1990 2000 2005 2015
Start-up until
Capacity worldwide (Mtpa)
Large gas turbine
Small gas turbine
Steam drive
? LNG Mechanical Drive Evolution

99. Ch. 30 -99
LNG & the World of Energy
30.6. LNG Process Technology History & Trends
Chapter 30 –LNG Technology -Processes

100. Ch. 30 -100
C3/MRCascade SMR C3/MR SMR
Specific Power, kW/tpd 12.2 14.1 14.5 15.3 17.0
Fuel Efficiency, % 92.9 91.2 91.6 90.8 90.0
Indexed Capex 100 119 97 100 97
Plant Availability, sd/a 340 336 338 342 340
Indexed Specific Cost 100 143 103 100 101
Shell Study -1998Pertamina 1999
Notes :
1.Shell Study was based on Standard Cascade not Optimized Cascade, thus high cost
2.Availability: Shell study was based on per module comparison, PERTAMINA study was
based on per train comparison
3.PERTAMINA Study did not inlude Cascade Process since Bechtel/Phillips alliance was not
applicable for Single FEED contract
Technology Is Not
The Main Cost Reduction Driver

101. Ch. 30 -101
 Peak Shaving Plant always use Plate
& Fin (Brazed Aluminum Exchanger)
 The first LNG Base Load Plant in
Camel GL4Z, Algeria (1964) uses Air
Liquide Spiral Wound stainless steel
packaged in a Cold Boxes. The
liquefaction technology is
Conventional Cascade based on
ethylene plant technology.
 The second LNG Base Load Plant in
Kenai-Alaska, USA (1969) uses plate
finned (brazed aluminum exchanger)
in a Cold Boxes. The liquefaction
technology uses is Phillips
Conventional Cascade.
 The next generation of Base Load
LNG Plant started by Brunei (1972)
use APCI all aluminum Spiral Wound
in tubular shell. The liquefaction
technology use is APCI propane pre-
cooled mixed refrigerant.
•Skikda GL1K, unit 10, 20 & 30 in Algeria
(1978) use all aluminum spiral wound
exchanger in tubular shell made by
Technip/Air Liquide, the liquefaction
technology is single mixed refrigerant from
Tealarc (Technip et Air Liquide Advance
Refrigeration Cycle)
•Skikda GL1K, unit 40, 50 & 60 in Algeria
(1981) use horizontal Brazed Aluminum
Cold Boxes, later replaced by vertical
design due to operational problem. The
liquefaction technology is PRICO single
mixed refrigerant.
•Trinidad Atlantic LNG Plant (1999) use
brazed aluminum cold boxes, the
liquefaction technology is Phillips Optimized
Cascade.
•Australia NWS-4 (under construction) and
Sakhalin LNG in Russia (under design) will
be using Linde all aluminum spiral wound
exchanger in tubular shell, the liquefaction
technology is Shell dual mixed refrigerant.
LNG Cryogenic Exchanger Design History

102. Ch. 30 -1020
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Start up Year
Train capacity (Mtpa)
Existing Existing
Under Construction Under Construction
Proposed Proposed
Other projectsShell designed projects
Badak LNG Arun LNG
Tangguh LNG
LNG Train Size Evolution

103. Ch. 30 -103
1.0
2.0
3.0
1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999
Year Built
LNG Train Capacity
Million Ton/year/train
Cascade
SMR
C3/MR
4.0
2004
5.0
DMR
LNG Train Size & Technology Trend

104. Ch. 30 -104
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1 9641 9681 9721 9761 9801 9841 9881 9921 9962 0002 0042 0082 012
MTPA
First
Generation
Second
Generation
Third
Generation
Fourth
Generation
Fifth Generation
LNG Technology Trend

105. Ch. 30 -105
LNG & the World of Energy
30.7. The Cryogenic Heat Exchanger
Chapter 30 –LNG Technology -Processes

106. Ch. 30 -106
Brazed Aluminum Exchanger (Prico & Phillips)

107. Ch. 30 -107
Brazed Aluminum Exchanger

108. Ch. 30 -108
The coil-wound heat exchanger
Produces by:
Air Products and Chemicals Inc. in USA
Linde in Germany
The heat exchangers are made in aluminium
Dimensions of a the main LNG coil-wound heat
exchanger is as follows:
Height 10-50 m
Diameter 3-5 m
Core tube diameter 1 m
Tube length 70-100 m
Tube diameter 10-15 mm
Typical surface density 100-150 m2/m3
Typical heating surface 10.000-20.000 m2

109. Ch. 30 -109
1.0
2.0
3.0
1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999
Year Built
LNG Train Capacity
Million Ton/year/train
Air Liquide
SWHE
Cold Box APCI SWHE
4.0
2004
5.0
Linde SWHE
(2 Modules)
TEAL
SWHE
Train Size & Cryogenic Exchanger Trend

110. Ch. 30 -110
Exchanger Type
Highest Pressure Rating, psig
Maximum Diameter, m
Surface Area Density, (m2/m3)
Largest Single Unit Weight, Ton
Largest Single Unit Heat Duty, MW
Heat Duty per Unit Weight, W/Ton
Heat Duty per Volume, W/m3
Heat Duty per Foot Print, W/Sq.ft
APCI
•Spiral
Wound
•______
•5.2
•______
•317
•15.5
•49
•20
•90
Linde
•Spiral
Wound
•_____
•4.2
•_____
•160
•1.6
•8
•10
•14
Chart
•Plate/
Fin
•1750
•N/A
•160
•87
•0.6
•6
•9
•33
•Spiral Wound Heat Exchanger also called Coiled Tubular Heat Exchanger
•Plate Fin Heat Exchanger (PFHE) also called Brazed Aluminum Heat Exchanger (BAHE) or
Brazed Aluminum Exchanger (BAE), and since they are ussually packaged in a insulated
box it‟s also called a Cold Box
LNG Main HE Features Benchmarking

111. Ch. 30 -111
The ideal LNG exchanger would be: large single unit, highest
heat exchange surface per volume, highest heat duty per
surface (lowest temperature approach), and . . . available
from many manufacturer (not a proprietary design)
Largest single unit, with highest heat exchange per volume is
currently the APCI spiral wound heat exchanger.
Largest single unit plate finned brazed aluminum exchanger is
1/10
th
of APCI LNG exchanger. Multiple units in parallel add
control complexity and gas/liquid re-mixing problem.
Linde spiral wound LNG exchanger is half the size of APCI‟s
LNG exchanger
When the plate finned brazed aluminum exchanger
manufacturer (Marston, Altec, Kobe Steel and Sumitomo) or
Linde spiral wound can make very large LNG exchanger in
single piece, APCI hegemony will be in serious jeopardy. Stay
tuned . . .
In Search of LNG Exchanger
Design Excellence

112. Ch. 30 -112
LNG & the World of Energy
30.8. LNG Plant Cooling Media
Chapter 30 –LNG Technology -Processes

113. Ch. 30 -113
Cooling Media in LNG Plant Design
Sea Water
High heat capacity of the
cooling medium, efficient
heat sink
Popular cooling medium for
the early Base Load LNG
Plants, 1960 ~ 1980‟s
Losing popularity due to
unfavourable environmental
impact and sea water
exchanger reliability
problems
Algeria (Camel, Arzew,
Skikda), Lybia, Kenai, Das
Island, Brunei, Badak
Sea Water/Air Cooled
Hybrid
Sea water for cold section
(liquefaction) and air cooled
for hot section (gas treating)
Arun, MLNG-1/2, QatarGas,
Nigeria
Sea Water/Fresh Water
Hybrid
Fresh cooling water closed
cicuit as the primary process
cooling media, cooled by
once thru sea water sysem
Maintain system efficiency
but eliminate sea water
exchanger reliability
problems
RasGas LNG
All Air Cooled Plant
Initiated by Australia NWS
Plant for environmental and
reliability consideration
MLNG-3, Trinidad, Oman
Becoming the trend for
future LNG Plant design

114. Ch. 30 -114
Carefull consideration in sea water corrosion impact
Sea water exchanger tubes material (90/10 Cu-Ni is
typical). In some cases may require expensive Titanium
exchanger
Corrossion prevention measures (cathodic protection
system)
Sea water mains protective internal coating/lining
Sea water exchanger type must allow easy
maintenance, tube cleaning or retubing
Proper and reliable chlorination system design is
important to avoid marine lifes growth in the system
Environmental impact counter measures:
Returned sea water temperature
Residual chlorine content in returned sea water
Sea Water System Design Consideration

115. Ch. 30 -115
Accurate prediction of basic thermal design data is
critical to an Air Cooled LNG Plant
Ambient air temperature
Prevailing wind direction and speed
Avoid hot air recirculation phenomenon
Plot plan
Equipment lay-out
Air cooler bay elevation
Gas Turbine exhaust elevation
Air Cooling System Design Consideration

116. Ch. 30 -116
Air Cooled Exchanger Design & Component

117. Ch. 30 -117
Air Cooler Header & Tube Fin Design

118. Ch. 30 -118
1.0
2.0
3.0
1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999
Year Built
LNG Train Capacity
Million Ton/year/train
Sea
Water
4.0
2004
5.0
Air Cooled
LNG Train Size & Cooling Media Trend

119. Ch. 30 -119
LNG & the World of Energy
30.9. Heavy Hydrocarbon Removal (De -
methanizer)
Chapter 30 –LNG Technology -Processes

120. Ch. 30 -120
PRECOOLING
LIQUEFACTION
MCHELEAN GAS
LNG
MR
C
3R
SCRUB
COLUMN
NGL
DRY NG
REFLUX
Conventional scrub column
C
3R
NG
55 bar
-16°C
NG
54 bar
-35°C
NGL
C3
R

121. Ch. 30 -121
PRECOOLING
LIQUEFACTION
MCHELEAN GAS
SCRUB
COLUMN
NGL
DRY NG
OVERHEAD
REFLUX
Scrub column (high recovery)
NG
52 bar
-65°C
NG
55 bar
-35°C
NGL
MCHE
LNG
MR
C
3R

122. Ch. 30 -122
PRECOOLING
LIQUEFACTION
MCHE
LEAN
GAS
MR
C
3R
CRYOMAX
DUAL
COLUMN NGL
RECOVERY
NGLDRY NG
Cryomax
LNG

123. Ch. 30 -123
Demethaniser Reflux
Recovery Tower Reflux
DC1
NGL
RT
PRECOOLED
GAS
LEAN GAS
TO MCHE
USPatent5,291,736
Cryomax -LNG
29 bar
36 bar
-80°C

124. Ch. 30 -124
LNG & the World of Energy
30.10. APCI LNG Liquefaction Processes
Chapter 30 –LNG Technology -Processes

125. Ch. 30 -125
Main
Cryogenic
Exchanger
Expander
LNG
to Storage
M
HP Fuel
Gas
End
Flash Gas
Compressor
Refrigerant
Make-up
Multicomponent Refrigerant
System
N2C1C2C3
GT
MR Compressor
M
LP C3
MP C3
HP C3
HHP C3
GT M
Propane Precooling
LP C3
MP C3
HP C3
HHP C3
Fractionation
C3 Compressor
To Furnace
Hydrocarbon
Condensate to
Storage
HP Fuel Gas
Acid
Gas
Sour
Feed
Gas
Mercury
Removal
Unit
Amine
Unit
Dehydration
Unit
HHP
C3
HP
C3
MP
C3
LP
C3
C2
NGL Reinjection
C3
C1
Scrub
Column
G
Generator
APCI Propane Precooled Mixed Refrigerant Process

126. Ch. 30 -126
8 Mtpa LNG train with 3 GE F-7
8 Mtpa C3-MR train is feasible and economic
2 possibilities for compressors
2 LP MR -propane compressors in parallel
and a HP MR compressor
Proven equipment , flexible
2 MR compressors in parallel and a 2
casing propane compressor
Less costly

127. Ch. 30 -127
Capacity Increase of C3-MR LNG Train
Strategy
Target : 30% capacity increase
No modifications to kettles, drums,
columns, C3 condensers
Modification of internals
Modification of compressors

128. Ch. 30 -128
5B
LP
MR
5B
LLP C3
LP C3MP C3 HP C3
HP MR
CW
CW CW
5B
HHP C3
CW
M
Propane Precooling Capacity Increase
Compressor line up before modification 67 M

129. Ch. 30 -129
Propane Precooling capacity increase
Compressor line up after modification : 93 MW
5B
5D
5B
5D
New
G/B
M
5B
5D
LP
MR
5B
LLP C3
LP C3MP C3 HP C3
HP MR
CW
CW CW
5D
HHP C3
CW
5B
8 Mtpa LNG train with 3 GE F-7

130. Ch. 30 -130
AP-X
TM
Process
C3 Pre-Cooling
Feed
Mixed
Refrigerant
Liquefaction
LNG
Nitrogen
Expander

131. Ch. 30 -131
AP-X
TM
Process
De-Bottlenecks C3-MR
LNG
-150 °C
Feed
MR volumetric flow per unit
LNG reduced by 40%
Propane volumetric flow per unit
LNG reduced by more than 20%
-115 °C

132. Ch. 30 -132
AP-X
TM
Process
C3 Pre-Cooling
Feed
LNG
Nitrogen
Expander
60-70%
Capacity in
C3MR mode
Flexible

133. Ch. 30 -133
Why an expander cycle for LNG subcooling?
Efficient at providing
cold refrigeration
Proven
Reliable and operable
LNG

134. Ch. 30 -134
Why Nitrogen?
LNG
Available and Inert
High Pressure
High Pressure =
Low ΔP Losses
High Pressure =
Compact
Equipment

135. Ch. 30 -135
Why Nitrogen?

136. Ch. 30 -136
AP-X
TM
Process–Driver Configuration
Frame 7, Frame 9 and electric motor drive
options
Choice depends on owner preference,
desired capacity, and design basis
Many combinations

137. Ch. 30 -137
APCI AP-X LNG Process

138. Ch. 30 -138
C3 Precooling
Feed
LNG
MRLiquefaction
MRV
The C3MR LNG Process

139. Ch. 30 -139
LNG
-150 °C
Feed
MR volumetric flow per
unit LNG reduced by 40%
Propane volumetric
flow per unit LNG
reduced by more
than 20%
-120 °C
De-Bottlenecks C3-MR
AP-X
TM
Process

140. Ch. 30 -140
LNG, Mixed Fluid Cascade Process (Linde)
Precooling
Liquefaction
Subcooling
NG
LNG
Sea water
Sea water
Sea water
-160°C
-50°C
-80°C

141. Ch. 30 -141
ARUN 6
WOODSIDE 3
MALAYSIA 8
BADAK 8
BRUNEI 5
OMAN 3
DAS ISLAND 3
QATAR 14
ALGERIA 12
LIBYA 4
NIGERIA 6
EGYPT 1
TANGGUH 2
APCI Process Trains

142. Ch. 30 -142
Market Share of LNG Processes Worldwide
C3/MCR (APCI)
79,8%
MCR (APCI) 0,8%
PRICO 2,2%
Optimised
Cascade
(Conoco/Phillips)
6,7%
C3/MCR
(APCI/SHELL) 8,2%
Simple Cascade
(Phillipps) 1,1%
TEAL 0,6%
Simple Cascade
(Technip) 0,6%

143. Ch. 30 -143
APCI C3/MR LNG Liquefaction Process

144. Ch. 30 -144
APCI Main Cryogenic Exchanger
(Shell & Tubes, Spiral Wound)

145. Ch. 30 -145
LNG Heat Exchanger .
A Closer Look

146. Ch. 30 -146
The APCI LNG Main Heat Exchanger

147. Ch. 30 -147
The APCI LNG Main Heat Exchanger
 The Main Cryogenic Heat
Exchanger, or MCHE, is the heart
of the LNG process.
 Each MCHE consists of several
spiral-wound tube bundles housed
within an aluminum or stainless
steel pressure shell designed to
retain refrigerants in the event of
a shutdown.
 For LNG service the heat
exchangers may consist of one-,
two-, or three-tube bundles, each
made up of several tube circuits.
 With this type of exchanger, the
tube circuit areas can be matched
to the process requirements. The
result is a very efficient and
compact design
 Attributes of MCR Cryogenic Heat Exchangers
 APCI is the world‟s largest supplier of baseload LNG heat exchangers.
 Manufacturing at Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, convenient to eastern United States ports.
 At Wilkes-Barre, tube bundles, separators, distributors, piping, and other components are
fabricated and positioned within the heat exchanger shell.
 Final assembly of the large MCHEs at a manufacturing annex at the Port of Bucks County,
also in Pennsylvania, to eliminate welding after the exchanger arrives on-site.
 The typical exchanger may be as large as 16.5 feet (5.0 meters) in diameter and 180 feet
(55 meters) high and weigh 500 tons (455 metric tonnes).
 The large size of the individual heat exchanger tube bundles facilitates the design of large
process trains.
 In addition to providing economies of scale, this leads to simple piping and control systems
and, consequently, to reductions in installation, operation, and maintenance costs.

148. Ch. 30 -148
LNG Specific Power Reduction Trend

149. Ch. 30 -149
Capital Cost Comparison*C3MRAP-X
TM
Capacity, mta 8 8
No. of Trains 2 1 Capital Cost Millions US$
Plant Facilities 1,272 1,131
Marine Facilities 24 24
Temporary Infrastructure 52 52
Total 1,348 1,207
US $/tpa 169 151
*Courtesy of Merlin Associates

150. Ch. 30 -150
8 Mta Capacity LNG Train
Dual MR version
Coil Wound MCHE of
a size currently
manufactured
Avoids parallel
compression
equipment
Uses proven
technology and
components
35m
35m
MCR
®
Cryogenic
Heat Exchanger
LNG
SubCooler
N
2 Economizer
Boxes
Compander System
LNG Train Size Growth
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Date of Commissioning
Train Size, MTA

151. Ch. 30 -151
LNG & the World of Energy
30.11. Shell DMR (Dual MR) Liquefaction
Processes
Chapter 30 –LNG Technology -Processes

152. Ch. 30 -152
Shell Dual Mixed Refrigerant Process
Shell DMR Process
Two String Design
Electric Drive
Water Cooling
Liquefaction Plant Benefits
Less and Smaller Equipment and Lower
Hydrocarbon Inventory
Improved Onstream Time
Smaller Plot Size
Safety

153. Ch. 30 -153
Cycles remain
independent
Increased propane
volume flow
Capacity up to 5Mtpa
SplitPropane
Traditional
Line-upF7M
MP HPLP HHP
F7M
MP HPLP HHP
Shell SplitPropane™ Process

154. Ch. 30 -154
Extra degree of
freedom
Full power utilisation
of each cycle
Flexible to ambient /
feed gas changes
Reduced equipment
count
High efficiency
5.5Mtpa can be produced from 2 GE F7
T
H
Shell Dual Mixed Refrigerant Process

155. Ch. 30 -155
•Reliable drivers
•Capex neutral
•Flexible motor size and speed
•Increased vendor base
•Environmental upside
GT
EM GTEM
Elec –drive
(4 identical electromotors)
Mech –drive (using 2
GE F7 GT’s)
Electrical Drive Alternative for Mechanical Drive

156. 3 4 5 6 7 8
Capacity (Mtpa)
Specific Capex DMR
C3/MR
Electric DMR
?
Shell‟s View on LNG Capex Reduction
May not because of the
technology but due to the
Economic of Scale

157. Ch. 30 -157
 Single pre-cooling and two parallel liquefaction cycles
 Propane or Mixed Refrigerant in pre-cooling
 Flexible driver & compressor selection
 Three Frame 7 drivers: production up to 8.5MtpaGas
Receiving
Gas
Treating
Precooling
Liquefaction
End
flash
LNG
tank
Fractionation
Liquefaction
Condensate
stabilisation
Shell Parallel Mixed Refrigerant Process

158. Ch. 30 -158
F7M
F7M
F7M
Treated
Gas
LPG
LNG
Fuel
Pre-cool MR loops NG loop
Parallel Mixed Refrigerant Process
based on DMR
High On line availability
Proven equipment
Efficiency

159. Ch. 30 -159
Treated
Gas
LPG
MR loops NG loop
MP HPLP HHP
F7M
F7M
F7M
LNG
Fuel
Pre-cool
Parallel Mixed Refrigerant Process
with C3 pre-cool
High On line availability
Proven equipment
Efficiency

160. Ch. 30 -160
On-line Availability (Fraction of Time)
GT
0.98*
= 0.96
GT
0.98
Traditional
= 0.97
GT
0.98*
GT
GT
0.99
PMR
= 0.94GT
0.98*
GT
0.98*
GT
0.98
Cascade 3 cycles
Parallel Mixed Refrigerant Process

161. Ch. 30 -161
LNG & the World of Energy
30.12. Axens Liquefin LNG Liquefaction Processes
Chapter 30 –LNG Technology -Processes

162. Ch. 30 -162
LNG
Process
Gas
Precooling
Liquefaction
Axens Liquefin Process

163. Ch. 30 -163
Axens Liquefin Process

164. Ch. 30 -164
Liquefin process
High efficiency
Plate-fin heat exchange
line:
modular approach
Simplicity and reliability
Wide range of capacity

165. Ch. 30 -165
LNG Processes –Specific Energy

166. Ch. 30 -166
LNG & the World of Energy
30.13. ConocoPhillips Optimized Cascade
Chapter 30 –LNG Technology -Processes

167. Ch. 30 -167
Treated
Gas LNG
Propane
Ethane
Methane
Phillips Optimised Cascade Process

168. Ch. 30 -168
Phillips Optimized Cascade LNG Process

169. Ch. 30 -169
The Optimized Cascade
SM
LNG Process

170. Ch. 30 -170
Gas
Conditioning
100%
Propane
Cycle
100%
Ethylene
Cycle
100%
Methane
Cycle
100%
Storage &
Loading
100%
Turbine/
Compressor
50%
Turbine/
Compressor
50%
Turbine/
Compressor
50%
Turbine/
Compressor
50%
Turbine/
Compressor
50%
Turbine/
Compressor
50%
Boil off Gas
Power
Generation
Overall Plant Production Efficiency >95%
Operating Range (% of design)
Full Plant 80 –105%
One Turbine Offline 60 –80%
Three Turbines Offline*
*At least one turbine on each cycle must be operating
30 –60%
Plant Idle 0 –30%
COP Optimized Cascade LNG Process
Two-Trains-in-One Approach Maximum
plant availability with operating flexibility

171. Ch. 30 -171
Propane
Refrig.
System
Ethylene
Refrig.
System
Methane
Compressor
Vapor
Recovery
LNG Storage
and Loading
LIQUEFACTION
Marine
Facilities
Condensate
Stabilization
Condensate
Storage
Fuel Gas
Distribution
Plant Fuel
Ship
Vapors
LNG
to Ship
Nitrogen
Rejection
Nitrogen
Condensate
To Acid Gas
Incinerator /
Trucks
Acid Gas
Incineration
Feed
Gas
Gas
Conditioning
Block Flow Diagram
Darwin LNG Project

172. Ch. 30 -172
The Darwin LNG Process

173. Ch. 30 -173
Values are representative
Turbine Shaft
Power
(kW) Efficiency
Fuel
Consumption
(Indexed)
Scheduled
Downtime
Frame 5D Dual 32,580 29.4% 100 2.6%
LM2500+ Dual 31,364 41.1% 72 1.6%
LM6000 Dual 44,740 42.6% 69 1.6%
Frame 7E Single 86,225 33.0% 89 4.4%
Frame 9E Single 130,100 34.6% 85 4.6%
The Optimized Cascade
SM
LNG Process
Representative Turbine Performance

174. Ch. 30 -174
The Optimized Cascade
SM
LNG ProcessFrame 7 Power
Frame 7 Heat
Rate
LM6000 Power
LM6000 Heat
Rate
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Inlet Air Temperature (C)
Power and Heat Rate Index
(ISO=100)
Aeroderivatives are more sensitive to ambient conditions
Turbine Performance

175. Ch. 30 -175
The Optimized Cascade
SM
LNG Process
Turbine
(No. x Model)
Number of Turbines
By Service
(Propane/Ethylene/Methane)
Nominal
Train Size
(MTPA)
6 x LM2500+ 2 / 2 / 2 3.5
8 x LM2500+G4 3 / 3 / 2 5
6 x LM6000 DLE 2 / 2 / 2 5
9 x LM6000 DLE 3 / 3 / 3 7.5
Aeroderivative Plant Configurations

176. Ch. 30 -176
Phillips Cascade Process
Simple to design and operate
Simple cycle Frame 5 gas turbines mechanical drive
No helper turbine or large motor needed for start-up
Increased size with two gas turbine trains for each
refrigerant process
Parallel compressor trains avoids capacity limits
Increased CAPEX due to more (six) trains offset by
increased availability 95-96% with parallel train
operation
Loss of one train does not cause plant shut down
Production carries on with reduced capacity
Refrigerant and exchangers temperature not affected
by one train trip enabling quick restart

177. Ch. 30 -177
LNG & the World of Energy
30.14. Linde MFPC Liquefaction Processes
Chapter 30 –LNG Technology -Processes

178. Ch. 30 -178
Process
Gas
LNG
Precooling
Subcooling
Liquefaction
Linde Mixed Fluid Cascade Process (MFCP)

179. Ch. 30 -179
Statoil–Linde, LNG Technology Alliance
 Improvement of base-load LNG technology,
development procedures and execution strategies
 Success criteria: construction of first LNG plant with
joint technology
 Development of technology for floating LNG plants

180. Ch. 30 -180
Snohvit LNG Plant
 Plant comprises natural
gas pre-treatment,
liquefaction (PFHE), LNG
storage and re-
evaporation facilities
 Single flow mixed
refrigerant cycle
 Nameplate capacity:
13.5 t/hr
 Cooling, liquefaction and
subcooling of NG from
+25 °C down to
-165 °C
Process and Heat Exchanger Design
LNG to storage
HHC-Fraction
Purified natural gas
LP-refigerant
gaseous HP-refrigerant
liquid HP-refrigerant
M
C.W.
C.W.

181. Ch. 30 -181
Linde –Spiral Wound Heat Exchanger
 Three bundles, located one
above the other in one shell
 Surface area:
approx 4000 m2
 Diameter: 1.5 m
 Total Height: 28.6 m

182. Ch. 30 -182
Linde SWHE Internals
Tubes Bundles End showing
process streams grouping
Thermocouple on Tube
Bundles

183. Ch. 30 -183
Linde LNG Heat Exchanger in transit

184. Ch. 30 -184
Linde LNG Heat Exchanger

185. Ch. 30 -185
LNG Plant -All Electric Design
Power Grid Endflash
Motor
BOGMotor
ROP
HPMR
2
nd
Stage
3
rd
Stage
1
st
StageMotor
2
nd
Stage
3
rd
Stage
1
st
StageMotor
LPMR
1
st
Stage
2
nd
Stage
3
rd
StageMotor
1
st
Stage
2
nd
Stage
3
rd
StageMotor
Waste Heat Recovery
ST
Gen
GenFr 7FA
GenFr 7FA
GenFr 7FA
Inlet
Motor
Island Combined Cycle
Power Plant